Professional Documents
Culture Documents
El Hogar
AUTHOR: Magsino, Patricia Marie C.
G.R. No. L-26649 (July 13, 1927)
NOTES: 17 causes of action, take note of nos. 4,5,6, and 8
TOPIC: Internal organization of corporation
about by laws
PONENTE: Street, J.
FACTS:
Original Action in the Supreme Court
Quo warranto proceeding by Govt. of the Philippine Islands against El Hogar Filipino purpose is to deprive it of its
corporate franchise, exclude it from all corporate rights, and privileges, and effect a final dissolution of the
corporation
El Hogar organized under Sec. 171-190 Act No. 1459, devoted to the subject of building and loan associations, their
organization and administration.
The capital of the corporation was not permitted to exceed P3M, but Act No. 2092 amended the statute, permitting
capitalization to the amount of ten millions.
El Hogar amended its AOI stating that the amount of capital must not exceed what has been stated in Act No. 2092
This resulted to El Hogar El Hogar having 5,826 shareholders, 125,750 shares with paid-up value of P8.7M, the
corporation paid P7.16M to its withdrawing stockholders
The Government of the Philippine Islands filed an action against El Hogar due to the alleged illegal holding title to
real property for a period exceeding five (5) years after the same was bought in a foreclosure sale. Sec. 13(5) of the
Corporation Law states that corporations must dispose of real estate obtained within 5 years from receiving the title
The Philippine Government now wants that El Hogar be excluded from all corporate rights and privileges and effect a
final dissolution of said corporation
ISSUE(S):
Do the acts of respondent corporation merit its dissolution or deprivation of its corporate franchise, and the
exclusion from all its corporate rights and privileges
HELD:
NO. Court will not dissolve but will confine El Hogar to its legitimate purposes.
confine El Hogar Filipino to its legitimate purposes and to force it to eliminate its illegitimate purposes and
The government has made out its case, but the defendant should be permitted a reasonable time to fulfill the
conditions laid down in this decision.
RATIO: LISTED BELOW ARE THE 17 CAUSES OF ACTIONS AND THE COURTS DECISION AND RATIO.
1) Alleged illegal holding of real property for a period exceeding five years from receipt of title-Cause of delay is not
the respondents fault
2) That respondent is owning and holding a business lot with the structure in excess of its reasonable requirements
allows payment of dues or interest to be paid in advance but the corporation shall not allow interest on advance
payment grater than 6% per annum nor for a period longer than one year. The amount is satisfied by applying a
portion of the shareholders participation in the annual earnings. The mission of special shares does not involve
any violation of the principle that the shares must be sold at par.
10) That in making purchases at foreclosure sales constituting as security for 54 of the loans, El Hogar bids the full
amount after deducting the withdrawal value, alleged to be pursuing a policy of depreciating at the rate of 10
percent per annum, the value of the real properties it acquired and that this rate is excessive COURT FINDS NO
MERIT
The board of directors possesses discretion in this matter. There is no provision of law prohibiting the association
from writing off a reasonable amount for depreciation on its assets for the purpose of determining its real profits.
Art. 74 of its by-laws expressly authorizes the board of directors to determine each year the amount to be written
down upon the expenses for the installation and the property of the corporation. The court cannot control the
discretion of the board of directors about an administrative matter as to which they have no legitimate power of
action.
11) That respondent maintains excessive reserve funds COURT FINDS NO MERIT
The function of this fund is to insure stockholders against losses. When the reserves become excessive, the
remedy is in the hands of the Legislature. No prudent person would be inclined to take a policy in a company
which had conducted its affairs poorly that it only retained a fund barely sufficient to pay its present liabilities and
was in a condition where any change by the reduction of interest upon or depreciation in the value of securities or
increase of mortality would render it insolvent and subject to be placed in the hands of a receiver.
12) That the board of directors has settled upon the unlawful policy of paying a straight annual dividend of 10 percent
per centum regardless of losses suffered and profits made by the corporation, in contravention with the
requirements of Sec. 188 of the Corporation law COURT FINDS NO MERIT
As provided in the previous cause of action, the board of directors shall determine the profits and losses and this
means that they shall exercise the usual discretion of good businessmen in allocating a portion of the annual
profits to purposes needful of the welfare of the association. The law contemplates distribution of earnings and
losses after legitimate obligations have been met.
13) That El Hogar has made loans to the knowledge of its officers which were intended to be used by the borrowers for
other purposes than the building of homes and no attempt has been made to control the borrowers with respect to
the use made of the borrowed funds COURT FINDS NO MERIT
There is no statute expressly declaring that loans may be made by these associations SOLELY for the purpose of
building homes. The building of homes in Sec. 171 of Corporation Law is only one among several ends which
building and loan associations are designed to promote and Sec. 181 authorizes the board of directors of the
association to fix the premium to be charged.
14) That the loans made by defendant for purposes other than building or acquiring homes have been extended in
extremely large amounts and to wealthy persons and large companies COURT FINDS NO MERIT
The question of whether the making of large loans constitutes a misuser of the franchise which would justify the
court in depriving the association of its corporate life; is a matter confided to the discretion of the board of
directors. The law states no limit as to the size of the loans to be made by the association. Resort should be had to
the legislature because it is not a matter amenable to judicial control
15) That when the franchise expires, supposing the corporation is not reorganized, upon final liquidation of the
corporation, a reserve fund may exist which is out of all proportion to the requirements that may fall upon it in the
liquidation of the company COURT FINDS NO MERIT
This matter may be left to the discretion of the board of directors or to legislative action if it should be deemed
expedient to require the gradual suppression of reserve funds as the time for dissolution approaches. It is no
matter for judicial interference and much less could the resumption of the franchise be justified on this ground.
16) That various outstanding loans have been made by the respondent to corporations and partnerships and such
entities subscribed to respondents shares for the sole purpose of obtaining such loans COURT FINDS NO
MERIT
Sec. 173 of Corporation Law declares that any person may become a stockholder in building and loan
associations. The phrase ANY PERSON does not prevent a finding that the phrase may not be taken in its proper
and broad sense of either a natural or artificial person.
17) That in disposing real estate purchased by it, some of the properties were sold on credit and the persons and
entities to which it was sold are not members nor shareholders nor were they made members or shareholders,
contrary to the provision of Corporation Law requiring loans to be stockholders only COURT FINDS NO MERIT
The law does not prescribe that the property must be sold for cash or that the purchaser shall be a shareholder in
the corporation. Such sales can be made upon the terms and conditions approved by the parties.